From: Chuck Murcko <chuck@telebase.com>
Message-Id: <199610310948.EAA11143@telebase.com.>
Subject: Re: mod_pics_simple
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 04:48:36 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199610310118.RAA22544@clotho.c2.org> from "sameer" at Oct 30,
 96 05:18:30 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
ReSent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:59:25 -0800 (PST)
ReSent-From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@hyperreal.com>
ReSent-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
ReSent-Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961031095925.18127G@taz.hyperreal.com>
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

sameer liltingly intones:
> 
> 	Now that mod_pics_simple is already in the tree I feel like I
> am too late to talk about this, but we haven't shipped a beta yet, so
> maybe there is hope.
> 
> 	I don't think we should put mod_pics_simple in the standard
> distribution. I think that PICS is a very highly charged
> politically-loaded censorship standard. Now I'm not saying that the
> group should ditch mod_pics_simple as a statement that PICS is wrong,
> but it seems to me that inclusion of PICS is an implicit support for
> PICS.
> 	Now if the group consensus is we *should* support PICS, then I
> am not going to continue to say that mod_pics_simple should be
> removed. But if the group doesn't feel like advocating the standard,
> it shouldn't be included.
> 	(I have no problem with it being on the module registry and
> available on the www.apache.org site. That sort of availability
> doesn't appear that it is endorsement)
> 
> 	So if the group doesn't want to endorse PICS, I think we
> should remove it.
> 
Having read the October article in Communications of the ACM on PICS,
I'm in agreement  with Sameer on this one. I was originally in favor
of the mod_pics_simple inclusion.

chuck
Chuck Murcko	N2K Inc.	Wayne PA	chuck@telebase.com
And now, on a lighter note:
It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.